Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41307/2016rejected

Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2016-11-18Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41307 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -52 Year- 2016 Thana -SHAKURABAD District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Sharma, Son of Late Tapeshwar Singh, resident of Village- Narayanpur, Police Station- Shakurabad in the district Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ataur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Shakurabad P.S. Case No. 52/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act.

The victim boy alleged that he was residing in the house of his maternal uncle and Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Sharma (petitioner) is neighbour of his maternal uncle. The petitioner took the victim boy inside the house and made an attempt to commit unnatural offence with him, but the informant raised alarm and thereafter the petitioner fled away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41307 of 2016 (2) dt.18-11-2016 2/2 petitioner is a social worker. He is aged about 70 years old. The petitioner filed many Public Interest Litigations for different purposes such as removal of encroachment, illegal activity of Mukhia and others and that is why the local Mukhia got this case filed against the petitioner, but it appears that the victim boy has got no relation with the Mukhia. The victim boy also residing in the house of his maternal uncle which is situated by the side of house of the petitioner.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T